Gun buster signs and NO-GUN employers

This is a discussion on Gun buster signs and NO-GUN employers within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I copied this post from another forum. This guy hit the nail on the head when it comes to the 2nd amendment and those idiotic ...

Gun buster signs and NO-GUN employers

I copied this post from another forum. This guy hit the nail on the head when it comes to the 2nd amendment and those idiotic gun-buster signs.

***********************

Those of us who contend that the Second Amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves while we are at work or out conducting business are far from ignorant of the law. To the contrary, we are painfully aware of how the law has been used to deny us our right to defend ourselves in these places. And once again, we have witnessed yet another incident where people on the job were killed or wounded because they weren't allowed to defend themselves from one deranged co-worker (Police: Minn. office shooter kills 4, then self - Yahoo! News).

It has been argued that the Bill of Rights didn't cover everyone when it was first written. That is true. And because business people were more interested in protecting their income than protecting the rights of those who made that income possible, slavery was the law of the land until the civil war finally put an end to it. As one business owner posted to this forum, "For me the bottom line is more important than this topic. And that's how one becomes successful. Every single decision we make from morning to bedtime is based on the question "is this financially good for the company... and for me as the owner?" Another poster observed, "I'm in the money business. I'm not in the 'rights' business. Don't like it? Take your business or employment elsewhere. It's not negotiable." That is the attitude that kept slavery going for hundreds of years around the world in the past, and THAT is the attitude that makes the Minnesota, or Colorado, or V Tech shootings possible today. As the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, observed regarding active shooter incidents:

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage"

But then something happened: the common people began to understand how their rights had been denied them. They began talking about how the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights - ALL of them - should belong to everyone. And because people began to talk, action was initiated, and eventually laws - a seemingly insurmountable number of them - were changed. THAT is what is happening here in this and other forums. People are recognizing that the law needs to be changed. It isn't about ignorance of the law, it is about a recognition that a right that exists in our Bill of Rights is being denied us simply because the government hasn't gotten around to declaring us a "protected group." It is about a recognition that the "golden rule" still exists, and that those who have the gold (the chamber of commerce and other groups that buy politicians) are still making the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of the rights of those who make it possible for them to be profitable - both employees and clients.

I have news for you, the Civil Rights Act was intended to do only one thing: assure that certain groups of people who had experienced discrimination - the denial of their Constitutional rights - no longer experienced that discrimination. That is all. It didn't set them apart for "special" treatment, although that is how it has been interpreted, and it didn't tell the rest of us to bug off, that OUR civil rights no longer meant anything compared to the rights of the few protected groups. It was created to insure that ALL the rights of ALL the people - without exception - were protected.

It begins with people talking about it - and then doing something to change it. It has happened before, despite the efforts of wealthy businessmen to stop it, and it can and must happen again. THAT is what scares the business owners on this forum the most. The notion that, for all of their barking about the power of the Chamber of Commerce and the pile of precedent on their side, they could actually lose the control they now maintain. There might actually come a time when they WON'T be able to tell their employees, "I don't care WHAT you believe about the Second Amendment; if you want to work for me, you'll abide by MY understanding of the Second Amendment. And if you choose not to, QUIT! There are 50 others waiting for your job." Because the reality is, most of these business owners WON'T close up their businesses if this ever happens. They have bills to pay and mortgages to maintain, and families to feed. They can say what they want to now, but at that time they will grumble a bit and then get on with business. In the meantime, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that a business owner can prohibit those who enter his business from protecting themselves, and then when something terrible happens, as was the case in Minnesota this week, and people are injured or die, they can simply say, "Oh well, that's just the cost of doing business and protecting MY rights; screw the rest of you."

I think that discrimination in retail stores came about because the customers with the most money wanted it that way. When it became socially unacceptable, the people running the stores changed because the customers changed their minds.

The no guns allowed sign doesn't really work does it. The criminal is going to bring in a gun. The nut is going to bring in a gun. Customers are not going to know law abiding citizen carry a concealed. The sign has nothing to do with customers.

I have news for you, the Civil Rights Act was intended to do only one thing: assure that certain groups of people who had experienced discrimination - the denial of their Constitutional rights - no longer experienced that discrimination. That is all. It didn't set them apart for "special" treatment, although that is how it has been interpreted, and it didn't tell the rest of us to bug off, that OUR civil rights no longer meant anything compared to the rights of the few protected groups. It was created to insure that ALL the rights of ALL the people - without exception - were protected.

YOU are not being discrimnated for who you are. You are more than welcome to any establishment. Just don't bring your gun. Your gun is not a religion, nor a religious item. It is not a physical part of you or your make up. It is not your skin color nor gender. It is a piece of equipment just like a blowtorch. A proprieter can and should have the right to determine WHAT is brought into their establishment. That is the point. Golf courses have dress codes as well as some resteraunts. It is the same thing no matter how much you want to beleive otherwise or until the courts rule otherwise.

The no guns allowed sign doesn't really work does it. The criminal is going to bring in a gun. The nut is going to bring in a gun. Customers are not going to know law abiding citizen carry a concealed. The sign has nothing to do with customers.

You're exactly right about the criminals. They're criminals BECAUSE THEY DON'T OBEY THE LAW. No gun signs are honored only by law abiding citizens where those signs have the force of law (as here in NC). Otherwise, they just tell the criminal that no one is armed to oppose them. I asked one of our local store's manager if, since they were denying me the ability to protect myself were they providing extra security. He said "no" and I promptly informed him that if anything happened to me while in his store that I would sue the company. The signs came down within a week.

During the last legislative session in SD, there was a parking lot bill proposed, among a few other pro-2A bills. I listened to some of the debate, and the position put forth by the business community and their bought and paid for legislators was downright ludicrous.

High on their list of reasons to kill the bill was the fear of workplace violence by an employee with a gun stored in their car. That some PO'd person would run out to their car, grab their gun and go on a shooting spree in the office. Some even claim that OSHA regs require them to have a gun free workplace.

What hooey. OSHA has no such requirement. Further, using OSHA's own data, there is very little evidence of current employees using firearms in the workplace. The preponderance of violence (fatal or otherwise, gun-related or otherwise) is committed by an outsider. A robber or a spouse/significant other of an employee is most likely to perpetrate violence. Or a dismissed employee. In any case, if a gun is involved, the perpetrator brings it directly in.

It is so seldom the case of an employee going out to get a weapon and return, it's not worth considering. But that's the big bugaboo the business owners are afraid of.

We've said it before, and we'll keep on saying it. No-gun signs only prevent the law abiding person from having the defensive tool to use against the law breaker who will stroll right past that sign. Just like in the recent video put out by Houston

YOU are not being discrimnated for who you are. You are more than welcome to any establishment. Just don't bring your gun. Your gun is not a religion, nor a religious item. It is not a physical part of you or your make up. It is not your skin color nor gender. It is a piece of equipment just like a blowtorch. A proprieter can and should have the right to determine WHAT is brought into their establishment. That is the point. Golf courses have dress codes as well as some resteraunts. It is the same thing no matter how much you want to beleive otherwise or until the courts rule otherwise.

Well, there's the solution. We need to create The Religion of the Gun!

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage"

I suspect that at least two of these never would have taken place had the perp suspected that citizens in the area were armed, trained and willing to use their gun. For sure Fort Hood never would have taken place if all on duty military personnel carried. What would even disturbed teens do if they knew that many of their teachers had concealed guns?
I suppose some would have found different targets, but... where if there were no GunFreeZoness?

YOU are not being discrimnated for who you are. You are more than welcome to any establishment. Just don't bring your gun. Your gun is not a religion, nor a religious item. It is not a physical part of you or your make up. It is not your skin color nor gender. It is a piece of equipment just like a blowtorch. A proprieter can and should have the right to determine WHAT is brought into their establishment. That is the point. Golf courses have dress codes as well as some resteraunts. It is the same thing no matter how much you want to beleive otherwise or until the courts rule otherwise.

I feel more realistically would be a sign that states "No Open Carrying". I completely understand the reasoning why in various states there is different level of gun awareness and acceptance is also different. Whether we all like it or not it is a fact. I live in MA and open carrying is just not done unless you are an LEO or armed security. Now with that being said, I am a high level manager whom works for a mid size Construction Company and I carry every day all day. I have a Cross Breed IWB and only a select few know I carry and can even tell. These few being our owner's and one or two clients that I have told. No one notices or even tries to and it also gives me the element of surprise. I have had my MA LTC for over 12 years and only started carrying full time over the past few weeks as many of our new projects are in very bad areas as well as my understanding of the changing times and increasing amount of public shootings. In addition the paperwork required to get my RI LTC (I work in RI) was extremely extensive compared to all other states I have seen. I now have it is 3 states that reciprocate across the board for a total of 30, which works for me for now.

Which part of the Bill of Rights specifically addresses private property rights?

Not that I agree with Pythius much but where in the Bill of Rights does it say a private person or company cannot prohibit firearms. we on tis forum go out of our way t make it a pooint that when they talk about infringed it is about the government doing the infringing